Settlements continue to expand beyond the 'Green Line'

[Gmart]

More journalists should take note of JStreet and what it's trying to achieve.

They still seem keen on the 2-state solution rather than the 1-state. Dividing the population should be avoided at all costs, Israel needs to absorb them making all the compromises necessary to ensure that happens.

Isn't it sad that we are avoiding the real problem here - Israel, a created, modern state based on religion, which considers other religions of so little importance, that it takes their land and herds them into cities with primitive facilities, and then barracades them in without supplies.

Where is the 2 state plan? Impossible it would seem. Israel refuses to allocate enough land as Palestinians conditions worsen. Cholera will set in at sometime, and then we will have millions dying. Or maybe a nuclear exchange of some sort?

And all because Israel refuse to back down. They refuse to accept any solution because they just want the land. Land is power. The people are of no consequence, and the rest of the world looks on with horror because can't actually do anything or else they'd be labeled anti-semite.

No disrespect to the Jews of course, they wanted land and they went and invaded somewhere, bad enough some might say; but where a man is born is his home. These Palestinians are suffering and they are trying to get our attention. Rockets are all they have. Israel has cut off the supply lines for anything else.

This includes the Israelis too. Where they were born is home too, but there needs to be compromise.

Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement. "I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality," "The settlers, the attitude that I present here, this is the heart. This is the pulse. This is the past, present, and future of the Jewish state," "We will stay here forever."

The experience shows that the world belongs to those who are stubborn, and we are very stubborn.

Stubborn, she says, because they were ordered to populate this land by no less an authority than God.

^^^ This attitude needs to change - they're not on a mission from God FFS. What do we do with nutters? Lock them up...

Extremists are the same wherever but the government needs to be strong and do what needs to be done or else this conflict could last...

Israel needs to separate the church and state rather than seeing how much of a land grab they can get until they really must stop...

 

[frogwoman]

Its not because they'd be labelled anti-semites that noibody is doing anything ffs - plenty of countries in the CIS still have heavy institutionalised discrimination in place for Jews. do you really think that is something on which states base their policy? "let's put sanctions on israel"
"let's not because we'll get called anti-semitic"

ffs

 

[frogwoman]

The reason nobody is doing anything isn't because Israel is made up of jews or people are scared of being anti-semites or any other such bullshit. Plenty of the regimes which support israel or which israel has supported in the past, anti-semitism definitely isnt their top concern to say the least

What posibile reasons, besides the fear of anti-semitism, could states have in wanting to let israel get away with what it wants?

 

[El Jefe]

edit - misunderstood post

 

[Gmart]

What posibile reasons, besides the fear of anti-semitism, could states have in wanting to let israel get away with what it wants?

I am not in the business of guessing as to other people's motives, I merely tell it as I see it.

I note that you seem to have ignored the rest of my post.

You seem keen to tell me what it isn't, so please comment on any of the rest of my post - how about:

Israel, a created, modern state based on religion, which considers other religions of so little importance, that it takes their land and herds them into cities with primitive facilities, and then barracades them in without supplies.

OR

And all because Israel refuse to back down. They refuse to accept any solution because they just want the land. Land is power.

OR

where a man is born is his home

 

[CyberRose]

I think the situation in Gaza is a pretty welcome distraction for those who support Settlements in West Bank. IMO the Settlements are the greatest impediment to peace (altho the Gaza blockade is the major source of discontent at the moment, a blockade can be lifted at the click of a finger of Israel wanted to, but the Settlements are a lot trickier). I'm surprised there hasn't been a lot more civil unrest in West Bank because of the way the Settlements are such a burden on Palestinians living there (blockades, military presence, Settler-only roads, water supplies stolen).

The thing that pisses me off the most is that the reason given by Israel for maintaining these Settlements is security. Perhaps there was some truth in their concerns in the 70s when the enemy was state militaries (altho I would disagree with them), now the Settlements only pose a security threat because of how they make the Palestinians react. Obviously the "security" excuse is just that - an excuse to hide the real reason. I don't think any of the major parties particularly want to maintain the Settlements and recognise the security threat, but it's just too politically damaging not to support them. For a similar reason, that's probably why America will always say the Settlements are illegal but do fuck all about it (in fact it would probably be more damaging politically to the Americans than the Israelis to oppose the Settlements).

I think the Settlements in the West Bank have just got all out of control. The religious nutters that build them wield too much power in the Knesset and in New York right now. It would take a real strong Israeli government to get rid of them and I can't see there being anything but coalition governments for the time being, meaning the smaller parties (like the ones consisting of, or supporting, the Settlers) hold a lot of the cards and political power...

 

[Gmart]

I can't see there being anything but coalition governments for the time being, meaning the smaller parties (like the ones consisting of, or supporting, the Settlers) hold a lot of the cards and political power...

I agreed with all your post and this sad conclusion.

I wonder if Hamas will see the advantage of going for the 1-state solution based on the principle:

Whatever our enemy least wants is what we want.

I consider the 2-state solution to be unachievable as well as likely to polorise and extend the conflict.

 

[CyberRose]

I consider the 2-state solution to be unachievable as well as likely to polorise and extend the conflict.

To be perfectly honest, whatever solution somebody proposes to end this conflict, they will unfortunately all appear as unachievable as every other solution proposed!

Personally, I agree with the two state solution as I think Oslo showed the Palestinians would be willing to accept that and I don't think Israel will accept anything that "kills" the Jewish state concept.

But like you mention above, that solution seems just as unachievable as all the other solutions cos we've been promoting that solution since the late 80s and now we're 20 years later and no nearer to the goal!

 

[Gmart]

So the status quo would seem to have been supported by the Israelis in the latest elections. A vote for paralysis of the peace process and a vote for the continuing cornering of the Palestinians on less and less land and all the negative effects this has. The Settlements continue and the 2-state solution looks less and less likely.

We have to face facts. Yes it is good to have a democracy there, but what do we do if that democracy refuses to deal with the humanitarian disaster caused by the military? Herding the Palestinians into a corner and then turning off all the facilities and stopping all trade is unlikely to find a solution to the conflict.

More and more it looks like the Native Americans all over again. Herded around the US on worse and worse land for centuries, before finally being allowed equal citizenship centuries too late. Israel seems unwilling to choose a future for itself sadly and it is the Palestinians who are suffering. No wonder they refuse to stop the bombings, how else could they draw people's attention to the disaster?

 

[CyberRose]

Well the difference between America and Israel is that it made (makes) no difference whether Native Americans become American citizens or not. America was not established as a country for and unique to a religion, so who becomes a citizen is not an issue, or maybe it was the relatively smaller size of the Native American population compared to the rest of the nation? Either way, Israel is a different matter.

Palestinians can't become citizens of Israel. To do so would signal the death of the "Jewish" state. Nobody who supports Settlement expansion for religious reasons would accept a mass influx into the political decision making process of Israel from another religion. And that's the Catch 22 of Israeli politics.

I don't think there are that many people in the major Israeli parties that particularly want to keep hold of the Settlements (let's face it, they're not stupid and will recognise that the Settlements are a direct threat to the security of Israel, not to mention the drain on the country for the cost of paying for their security). Even the current largest party, Kadima, was set up to get rid of the Gaza Settlements. However, there will be numerous small ultra-religious parties (some made up of the Settlers themselves iirc) that do care about maintaining the Settlements, and when Likud and Kadima and trying to woo all these smaller parties into their coalition, they will say to both "fine but the Settlements stay" and both Likud and Kadima will go along with it to get the chance to form the government.

The only way anything will EVER change, at least as far as Israel deciding themselves to change their policy, is if we ever get to a point where a party becomes strong enough on its own to win an absolute majority - and can anyone honestly say they can see that happening in the near or distant future?

Israeli policy will be influenced very strongly by these smaller extremist parties, which in turn gives the false (possibly) impression that the entire Israeli political spectrum also supports these extremist policies.

In my very honest opinion, I think it comes down to politics, not ideology, at the end of the day...

 

[Gmart]

So once again religion is the problem. If it weren't for some dodgy story written ages ago, Israel might be able to take the first steps towards a modern, secular state which is able to accept everyone as potential citizens as opposed to now where there is still an archaic 'us and them' paradigm which needs to be changed first.

Meanwhile the Palestinians die in numbers, and the rest of the world looks on, seemingly powerless!

It is a moot point even suggesting that the US could force change - as Israel would be against any suggestion of a 1-state solution even if the Palestinians could be persuaded. The democratic voice has clearly stated that the status quo is fine and despite the death this causes it seems unlikely that even the embargo on goods will be lifted.

Could cholera become an issue? It would seem that only widespread death and its reporting could change the situation?

 

[CyberRose]

I'm saying that the current reality of Israeli politics gives the small, extremist parties a disproportionally loud voice when deciding on policy.

When you say Israel above (obviously meaning the Israeli government), and pretty much when anyone ever mentions the same on here, they say what Israel wants. That's ideological. It assumes that the entire political make-up of Israel desires a certain policy, in this case, the continuation (and expansion) of the Settlements.

My point is that I don't think this is necessarily true, and we should look at Israeli policy politically, rather than ideologically. When I say politically, I mean the backstabbing and dealings that go on in order for an individual or group to be elected into power. Look at the British Labour government - they had to let go a lot of their left wing principles in order to win the support of the electorate - that's politics. In Israel it's even worse, because the large parties don't only have to give up some of their ideological principles to win the support of the electorate, they also have to take on some of the principles of the smaller parties that join their coalition (again, in this case, the continuation of the Settlements).

I think when we talk about what "Israel" wants or doesn't want, we should always bear in mind the political make-up of the government. If we take into account this, would it be more true to say "The Israeli government wants to continue the Settlements", or would it be more accurate to say "The Israeli government has to continue the Settlements"?

 

[Gmart]

Sadly it will probably take a humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians to get the world to insist that the Israelis give up their discriminatory standpoint and move towards a more modern model for statehood rather than the archaic one they are going for now.

 

[CyberRose]

Sadly it will probably take a humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians to get the world to insist that the Israelis give up their discriminatory standpoint and move towards a more modern model for statehood rather than the archaic one they are going for now.

Well I think a major problem is that Israel does have a modern model for statehood (or, at least, system of government). Israel operates a liberal democratic system of government. In liberal democracies across the world, obtaining political control is simply a rush to the centre in order to hoover up as many votes as possible. In countries where there are few large parties (like UK or US) it's not too much of a problem for one party or group to gain absolute control - ie what they want they get (but taking into account what they "want" depends on what the majority find acceptable). In liberal democracies where there are many parties of similar strength/support, the decision making process tends to grind to a halt or move at an incredibly slow pace because one party or group doesn't make all the decisions.

In Israel, there is usually a coalition government, meaning the process is slow, and, because of the (VERY) fine political balance, parties are scared shitless of alienating either their electorate or the other smaller parties that allow them to take the throne of power - that, after all, is the aim of all political parties that take part in the liberal democratic political processes around the world, and Israel is no exception to that.

A humanitarian disaster in Palestine would help the Palestinians get the world to insist they change their policy towards the occupied territories, but let's face it, there already HAS been (many) humanitarian disasters in Palestine and the world HAS insisted that Israel change its policy, but because of the problems mentioned above relating to the fine balance of political power in Israel, it's pretty irrelevant because Israeli policy will only change when the balance of political power allows it to do so. A landslide victory for Labour, for example, could have the effect of changing Israeli policy towards Palestine (including possibly the withdrawal to 67 borders), but an outcome like that would need for wholesale change in Israeli public opinion (probably to around early 90s levels) and that, in turn, is dependent on an extended time of peace...

...but then if the right wingers get in power, and they understand that lasting peace means the left wingers get in next time, they will act accordingly...(and this also applies to the Palestinian political parties as well, hawkish parties like Hamas will do well while there is no peace, those willing to talk to the Israelis will do well when there is peace, and the goal in Palestine is the same as in Israel - to obtain political control)

I said it before, but this whole conflict could be explained more by way of an understanding of politics and diplomacy (and what a very delicate balancing act they are) rather than a simplistic and clumsy ideological/religious explanation

 

[nino_savatte]

Sadly it will probably take a humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians to get the world to insist that the Israelis give up their discriminatory standpoint and move towards a more modern model for statehood rather than the archaic one they are going for now.

And the bombing and blockade of Gaza is not a current humanitarian crisis? I mean what else does it take?

 

[jimadore]

Looking at a map of that area,Can any one tell me why the arabs who live in palestine dont move to one of the very large countries near by? I am sure they brothers would welcome them ? that would bring peace to all !!! The Israelies have only a small tiny homeland. why all the killing over some land most of it was desert before 1948, Plenty for every one? peace to all

 

[nino_savatte]

Crap troll is crap.

 

[CyberRose]

Looking at a map of that area,Can any one tell me why the arabs who live in palestine dont move to one of the very large countries near by? I am sure they brothers would welcome them ? that would bring peace to all !!! The Israelies have only a small tiny homeland. why all the killing over some land most of it was desert before 1948, Plenty for every one? peace to all

Many did: Jordan and Lebanon and look how well that worked out for them!